{"id":"alj-H500016-2024-04-16","awcc_number":"H500016","decision_date":"2024-04-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Antavion White","employer_name":"Paper Tigers, Inc","title":"WHITE VS. PAPER TIGERS, INC. AWCC# H500016 April 16, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WHITE_ANTAVION_H500016_20240416.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WHITE_ANTAVION_H500016_20240416.pdf","text_length":3881,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H500016 \n \nANTAVION WHITE, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nPAPER TIGERS, INC., EMPLOYER                      RESPONDENT \n \nSENTINEL INSURANCE CO., LTD./ \nTHE HARTFORD, CARRIER/TPA           RESPONDENT \n  \n \n \nOPINION FILED 16 APRIL 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 10 April 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nAnderson, Murphy & Hopkins, LLP, Mr. Randy Murphy, appeared for the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Pine \nBluff, Arkansas, on 10 April 2025. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury \noccurring on 15 October 2024. Due to clerical difficulties, no exhibits were offered into the \nrecord at the hearing. The respondents offered to submit exhibits via email after the \nhearing’s conclusion. Instead, I have blue-backed to this opinion the claimant’s Form AR-C \n(dated 31 December 2024), the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, notice letters from the \nCommission, and one unclaimed Certified Mail envelope. In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson \nFoods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 549, these documents are being \nserved on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \nThe claimant filed a Form AR-C on 31 December 2024. According to the respondents’ \nmotion, he later informed the respondents that he did not wish to pursue this claim. On 16 \n\nA. WHITE- H500016 \n2 \n \nJanuary 2025, the respondents filed the immediate motion seeking a dismissal under \nCommission Rule 099.13 (“Rule 13”).  \n Notice of the respondents’ motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with \nCommission practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail, on 22 January 2025 to the \naddress provided on the AR-C. After no response or objection was received by my office, a \nnotice of a hearing on that motion was sent in the same fashion on 26 February 2025. When \nmailings are returned to the Commission as not accepted or undeliverable, those mailings \nare appended to the claim’s file. This file only contains a return of the hearing notice letter \nsent via Certified Mail. No other mailings were returned as unaccepted or undeliverable. \nFINDINDGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. The parties were provided with reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss \nand the hearing on that motion. \n \n3. The evidence preponderates that the claimant has failed to prosecute his \nclaim under Rule 13. \n \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim for additional benefits is \ndismissed without prejudice under Rule 13. \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe respondents appeared on 10 April 2025 and presented their motion. As argued \nby the respondents at the hearing, our Rule 13 provides for a dismissal for failure to \nprosecute an action upon application by either party and reasonable notice. The claimant \ndid not file a response to the motion or appear at the hearing to argue against the dismissal \nof his claim.  \n\nA. WHITE- H500016 \n3 \n \n The respondents relayed in their motion that the claimant did not wish to prosecute \nhis claim. The claimant, in turn, did not file a response or appear to object to the dismissal \nof his claim. His failure to appear is consistent with his apparently-expressed wish that the \nmatter not proceed. A dismissal without prejudice is, therefore, appropriate. \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT \nPREJUDICE. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H500016 ANTAVION WHITE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PAPER TIGERS, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SENTINEL INSURANCE CO., LTD./ THE HARTFORD, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 16 APRIL 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) Adm...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:41:44.964Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H500016-2024-04-16","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WHITE_ANTAVION_H500016_20240416.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}